4 ms·

The hard truth is that the combination of institutions that are the remnants of colonialism have a lot to do with unprecedented improvement in material well-bei

The hard truth is that the combination of institutions that are the remnants of colonialism have a lot to do with unprecedented improvement in material well-being all over the world, over the last 400 years or so. It is not pleasant to think about it in these terms; but it does seem like some of the greatest improvements in general human welfare have their roots in relatively ungenerous undertakings by methodical, reasonable, self-interested actors. The Romans roads and the Pax Romana, and the profound legacy of Roman law, were not the result of a benevolent desire to help everyone in the world and save them from evil.

sangnoir 2y ago
Yay - I can't wait for Pax Sinica to do away with the inefficiencies of democracy if it means more suffering humans will be uplifted. A brief period of reeducation is worth the amazing infrastructure and getting things done. The end will justify the means, right? /s There's something unsettling about the might makes right amd post-hoc justifications dor colonialism. Especially considering the colonialists did not have those "noble" goals in mind. No one lauds Google the way they laud the British empire, yet the same exploitation vs. public benefit arguments apply.
- solidsnack9000 2y ago
  No one is saying it is right; but we shouldn't draw the wrong lessons from the Roman Empire or many other cases of institutional development. Being brutal and taking from others is not something that distinguished the Romans from other people (nor did it distinguish the colonial Europeans). To dismiss the Romans, the colonials, &c, as of no benefit, however, is to deny reality. The Roman roads were genuinely of value to peoples besides the Romans. Perhaps the Chinese, to, will create institutions and a scope of activity that is of value to peoples outside of China. Probably not in Asia...
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > To dismiss the Romans, the colonials, &c, as of no benefit, however, is to deny reality. At no point did I dismiss the knowledge-transfer as being of no benefit. The point I was making is that it is very easy to be on a high horse and say "It was worth it" when you were not on the sharp end of the stick. By reframing the set-up with China as the imperial power, I hope to show the readers that the cost of "upliftment" might be something the unwilling subjects may consider culturally valuable (like democracy)[1]. Such one-dimensional analysis is intellectually lazy. 1. Imperialism has been dissected many times over the centuries, in fiction and otherwise, but it bears repeating.
    - solidsnack9000 2y ago
      Is it really arguing in good faith to put hypotheticals side by side, on an equal footing, with evidence? Maybe the Pax Sinica won't play out that way at all -- who knows.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        > Is it really arguing in good faith to put hypotheticals side by side, on an equal footing, with evidence? Is it arguing in good faith to consider other perspectives outside of our own? Yes it is, and I consider the reverse to be in bad faith. While I don't fully agree with Kant, I find the Universability of an approach to be a good filter for identifying not-okay actions that are justified by the perpetrators - sometimes me (a.k.a. the Silver Rule: "Don't do to unto others what you don't want to be done unto you") My high school history teacher would share historical accounts and encourage us to analyze the authors motivations and biases.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
> the combination of institutions that are the remnants of colonialism have a lot to do with unprecedented improvement in material well-being all over the world, over the last 400 years or so. Can you provide some examples and resources to back up this hard truth?
- solidsnack9000 2y ago
  Population sizes are one way to get an intuition for the extent of the change. There was considerable improvement in agricultural productivity over the last 400 years. Another way to get an intuition for it is the prevalence of various conveniencies of life. For example, I believe about two thirds of households in the world have refrigerators. About 12% of the world's households have cars. These and many other material benefits are possessed by regular people today but would have been out of reach 400 years ago to any member of the European nobility or, as Adam Smith puts it, "...an African king, the master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.". (In his time, Smith was commenting on how remarkable it was that an English workman could have pots and pans made of metal and a window made of glass.)
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    > Another way to get an intuition for it is the prevalence of various conveniencies of life. But all these things were invented after colonialism of most colonial countries. And they are prevalent in uncolonized countries in roughly the same ratios as colonized countries. Arguably the uncolonized (China being the main one) have more than the colonized (India being the main one)
    - solidsnack9000 2y ago
      When exactly did colonialism end, in your view? The British Empire was pretty substantial until the forties. The refrigerator and automobile were both invented well before that. It is not strictly correct to say China was uncolonized. I suppose parts of it were not. Global trade has, indeed, brought everything everywhere; but the present operation of global trade -- the norms used, the international bodies involved, even the weights and measures -- are all the result of power projection by western, colonial powers and prudent adaptation by other countries. Even China's legal system is an adaptation of a western legal system (the civil law). The prevalence of certain institutions is something we take for granted today but does have its roots in colonialism.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> The hard truth is that the combination of institutions that are the remnants of colonialism have a lot to do with unprecedented improvement in material well-being all over the world, over the last 400 years or so. It has a lot to do with the unprecedented improvement in material well-being in certain parts of the world, namely the colonizer nations and a handful of successful colonized ones. The majority of former-colony states are still struggling, most with the luxuries, many with the essentials, a few with even managing a stable state. The hard truth is the people in the developed world have only had it as good as they do because so many in the developing one have gone without to a frankly criminal degree for far too long. And they continue to be exploited. If you don't believe me look the shipbreaking yards where barefoot Bangladeshi work with plasma cutters to hack up ships beached there, or the electronic scrap heaps where people set fire to piles of e-waste to salvage the metals within, on and on. There are hundreds if not thousands of these examples where the West continues dominating the global south in clear, unmistakable ways, and precious few where the relationship goes the other way. As someone who has written extensively on this topic, both on the internet and not, it is frankly just offensive to see this viewpoint shared as though it's serious. Colonialism benefited colonial nations, because of course it did. It wouldn't have been done if it wasn't beneficial. To the colonized it represents an entire category of scars: some on their infrastructure, some on their economies, a lot on the places in which they live, a few on their actual bodies to this day, and many simply as a gigantic, unforgettable one across their collective souls.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  >And they continue to be exploited. Poverty isn't necessarily exploitation. The situation of Bangladesh would not be improved if every wealthier nation was suddenly sucked into the sea. In fact, the situation of Bangladesh would become considerably worse. Bangladesh has grown rapidly by selling clothing to rich countries, and through the work of NGOs. Supposing we put a forcible stop to this "exploitation" by placing sanctions on Bangladesh, so no one can trade with it, and kicking out all of the NGOs. Bangladesh becomes much poorer. >Colonialism benefited colonial nations, because of course it did. It wouldn't have been done if it wasn't beneficial. According to an old European history textbook I read: Once you take into account the costs of conquest, infrastructure, and administration, plus the opportunity for colonial administrators to take a cut on the sly (since the monarch was thousands of miles away), colonies weren't profitable on net. Supposedly the Brits did colonialism first, and other European countries followed in Britain's footsteps because "that's what an industrialized nation does". Do you believe Putin's invasion of Ukraine makes economic sense? I don't think that's what motivates him. The invention of the map might be the deadliest invention in history. To paraphrase Carl Sagan: "Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could momentarily color a small additional part of their map with their nation's color." >unprecedented improvement in material well-being in certain parts of the world, namely the colonizer nations Compare a per capita GDP ranking of European countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu... With a ranking of the largest empires: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires The top 10 per capita wealthiest countries in Europe, from Wikipedia, are: Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, San Marino, Iceland, Belgium, Austria. The top 10 largest European colonial empires, based on my skim, belonged to: Britain, Russia, Spain, France, Portugal, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Belgium. There's just not much of a relationship.

sangnoir 2y ago

Yay - I can't wait for Pax Sinica to do away with the inefficiencies of democracy if it means more suffering humans will be uplifted. A brief period of reeducation is worth the amazing infrastructure and getting things done. The end will justify the means, right? /s There's something unsettling about the might makes right amd post-hoc justifications dor colonialism. Especially considering the colonialists did not have those "noble" goals in mind. No one lauds Google the way they laud the British empire, yet the same exploitation vs. public benefit arguments apply.

solidsnack9000 2y ago
No one is saying it is right; but we shouldn't draw the wrong lessons from the Roman Empire or many other cases of institutional development. Being brutal and taking from others is not something that distinguished the Romans from other people (nor did it distinguish the colonial Europeans). To dismiss the Romans, the colonials, &c, as of no benefit, however, is to deny reality. The Roman roads were genuinely of value to peoples besides the Romans. Perhaps the Chinese, to, will create institutions and a scope of activity that is of value to peoples outside of China. Probably not in Asia...
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > To dismiss the Romans, the colonials, &c, as of no benefit, however, is to deny reality. At no point did I dismiss the knowledge-transfer as being of no benefit. The point I was making is that it is very easy to be on a high horse and say "It was worth it" when you were not on the sharp end of the stick. By reframing the set-up with China as the imperial power, I hope to show the readers that the cost of "upliftment" might be something the unwilling subjects may consider culturally valuable (like democracy)[1]. Such one-dimensional analysis is intellectually lazy. 1. Imperialism has been dissected many times over the centuries, in fiction and otherwise, but it bears repeating.
  - solidsnack9000 2y ago
    Is it really arguing in good faith to put hypotheticals side by side, on an equal footing, with evidence? Maybe the Pax Sinica won't play out that way at all -- who knows.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      > Is it really arguing in good faith to put hypotheticals side by side, on an equal footing, with evidence? Is it arguing in good faith to consider other perspectives outside of our own? Yes it is, and I consider the reverse to be in bad faith. While I don't fully agree with Kant, I find the Universability of an approach to be a good filter for identifying not-okay actions that are justified by the perpetrators - sometimes me (a.k.a. the Silver Rule: "Don't do to unto others what you don't want to be done unto you") My high school history teacher would share historical accounts and encourage us to analyze the authors motivations and biases.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

> the combination of institutions that are the remnants of colonialism have a lot to do with unprecedented improvement in material well-being all over the world, over the last 400 years or so. Can you provide some examples and resources to back up this hard truth?

solidsnack9000 2y ago
Population sizes are one way to get an intuition for the extent of the change. There was considerable improvement in agricultural productivity over the last 400 years. Another way to get an intuition for it is the prevalence of various conveniencies of life. For example, I believe about two thirds of households in the world have refrigerators. About 12% of the world's households have cars. These and many other material benefits are possessed by regular people today but would have been out of reach 400 years ago to any member of the European nobility or, as Adam Smith puts it, "...an African king, the master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.". (In his time, Smith was commenting on how remarkable it was that an English workman could have pots and pans made of metal and a window made of glass.)
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  > Another way to get an intuition for it is the prevalence of various conveniencies of life. But all these things were invented after colonialism of most colonial countries. And they are prevalent in uncolonized countries in roughly the same ratios as colonized countries. Arguably the uncolonized (China being the main one) have more than the colonized (India being the main one)
  - solidsnack9000 2y ago
    When exactly did colonialism end, in your view? The British Empire was pretty substantial until the forties. The refrigerator and automobile were both invented well before that. It is not strictly correct to say China was uncolonized. I suppose parts of it were not. Global trade has, indeed, brought everything everywhere; but the present operation of global trade -- the norms used, the international bodies involved, even the weights and measures -- are all the result of power projection by western, colonial powers and prudent adaptation by other countries. Even China's legal system is an adaptation of a western legal system (the civil law). The prevalence of certain institutions is something we take for granted today but does have its roots in colonialism.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> The hard truth is that the combination of institutions that are the remnants of colonialism have a lot to do with unprecedented improvement in material well-being all over the world, over the last 400 years or so. It has a lot to do with the unprecedented improvement in material well-being in certain parts of the world, namely the colonizer nations and a handful of successful colonized ones. The majority of former-colony states are still struggling, most with the luxuries, many with the essentials, a few with even managing a stable state. The hard truth is the people in the developed world have only had it as good as they do because so many in the developing one have gone without to a frankly criminal degree for far too long. And they continue to be exploited. If you don't believe me look the shipbreaking yards where barefoot Bangladeshi work with plasma cutters to hack up ships beached there, or the electronic scrap heaps where people set fire to piles of e-waste to salvage the metals within, on and on. There are hundreds if not thousands of these examples where the West continues dominating the global south in clear, unmistakable ways, and precious few where the relationship goes the other way. As someone who has written extensively on this topic, both on the internet and not, it is frankly just offensive to see this viewpoint shared as though it's serious. Colonialism benefited colonial nations, because of course it did. It wouldn't have been done if it wasn't beneficial. To the colonized it represents an entire category of scars: some on their infrastructure, some on their economies, a lot on the places in which they live, a few on their actual bodies to this day, and many simply as a gigantic, unforgettable one across their collective souls.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
>And they continue to be exploited. Poverty isn't necessarily exploitation. The situation of Bangladesh would not be improved if every wealthier nation was suddenly sucked into the sea. In fact, the situation of Bangladesh would become considerably worse. Bangladesh has grown rapidly by selling clothing to rich countries, and through the work of NGOs. Supposing we put a forcible stop to this "exploitation" by placing sanctions on Bangladesh, so no one can trade with it, and kicking out all of the NGOs. Bangladesh becomes much poorer. >Colonialism benefited colonial nations, because of course it did. It wouldn't have been done if it wasn't beneficial. According to an old European history textbook I read: Once you take into account the costs of conquest, infrastructure, and administration, plus the opportunity for colonial administrators to take a cut on the sly (since the monarch was thousands of miles away), colonies weren't profitable on net. Supposedly the Brits did colonialism first, and other European countries followed in Britain's footsteps because "that's what an industrialized nation does". Do you believe Putin's invasion of Ukraine makes economic sense? I don't think that's what motivates him. The invention of the map might be the deadliest invention in history. To paraphrase Carl Sagan: "Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could momentarily color a small additional part of their map with their nation's color." >unprecedented improvement in material well-being in certain parts of the world, namely the colonizer nations Compare a per capita GDP ranking of European countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu... With a ranking of the largest empires: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires The top 10 per capita wealthiest countries in Europe, from Wikipedia, are: Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, San Marino, Iceland, Belgium, Austria. The top 10 largest European colonial empires, based on my skim, belonged to: Britain, Russia, Spain, France, Portugal, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Belgium. There's just not much of a relationship.